Wednesday, March 26, 2014

It is a matter of regret that it had to come to this, but the Aryan Invasion debate seems to continue to generate bad blood. After both reading and personally meeting Prof. H.H. Hock, I had a positive impression of him. His published discussion of the problem of the isoglosses for the Out-of-India Theory (which Shrikant Talageri has answered in his 2008 book) did engage with the OIT on a contents level, so I am surprisedabout this development. On the other hand, it follows a pattern: most Indo-Europeanists completely ignore the material arguments offered by the OIT advocates. At any rate, below I reproduce Talageri's case, published also on other internet forums:

Hans Henrich Hock - I

A Scholar Lying Through His Teeth

Hans
Henrich Hock, Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and Sanskrit at the University of Illinois, and a prolific speaker and
crusader for certain points of view on various forums, including the internet
and particularly Youtube, spoke at the Lucy Ellis Lounge of the University on 9/9/2013. A summary of the
gist of his talk will be found at the following site:

In
this summary of his talk, there is a reference to my name in the context of the
three books written by me on the problem of the Indo-European Homeland: "only
'Aryans', i.e. Hindus, are real Indians; e.g. Talageri 1993ab, 2008".

In
his review of my third book (2008) on his internet blog, Koenraad Elst had disapproved
of my criticism of “mild-mannered
Prof. H.H. Hock” in that book in my
rebuttal of a linguistic argument made by him. Elst further elaborated to me
personally later that Hock was, in his well considered opinion, a reasonably
honest, open-minded and unbiased scholar.

Is Hock an honest scholar or is he an agenda-driven “scholar”
who can be brazenly dishonest and can lie through his teeth when it suits his
purpose to malign and libel the writings of someone whom he regards as being
from an academically opposite point of view? We will examine this in detail in
respect of the above reference to my name in the above summary of his talk at
the IllinoisUniversity.

His
statement summarizes the three main “ideologically
motivated” equations which I am alleged to have presented in my books:

“Aryans” = Hindus

Only “Aryans”
are “Real Indians”

Only
Hindus are “Real Indians”

Further,
his statement announces that:

I presented these three equations
in my books.

These equations in fact represent
a complete summing up of everything written in my books.

My book is the leading or most
typical representative of the ideological agenda behind these three equations.

Note
the following points:

1. My three books present a complete and irrefutable case
for the hypothesis that the Indo-European languages originated in India. The data
is so varied and complete and so final that I challenge anyone to examine my
data, analysis and conclusions and prove where I am wrong. I can not of course
insist as a personal right that every scholar of the Indo-European Homeland
question should accept my hypothesis and admit that whatever he wrote all these
years is wrong. I can not even insist as a right that such scholars should at
all take cognizance of my books and my hypothesis. The truth, whatever it is,
will ultimately prevail in the course of time. But, if any such scholar does
take official cognizance of my books, I do have an intellectual right to expect
that he deals with a minimum amount
of fairness and honesty with my case.

What Hock does is he refers to my books, but completely and
absolutely ignores everything relevant to the academic discussion contained in
those books. In an act of extreme intellectual cowardice, hypocrisy and
charlatanism, Hock treats the entire content of all my three books (1993b,
2000, 2008) as completely non-existent, and sums up my entire case as
consisting of an ideological agenda which he derives from three extraneous
non-academic additional chapters contained in version 1993a of the first book.
(His bibliography in the above summary refers to them as follows: “Talageri, Shrikant G. 1993a.
Aryan invasion theory and Indian nationalism. New Delhi: Voice of
India.Talageri, Shrikant G. 1993b. The Aryan invasion theory: A reappraisal.
New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan. [≈ 1993a, omitting the first, Hindutva-ideological
chapter.]”).

2. Not only does he treat the sum of my entire case in my three
books as consisting only of the ideological message he derives from the three
additional extraneous chapters contained in version 1993a of the first book,
but he lies through his teeth even in summing up the ideological message in
these three chapters, and gives the gist of my books as “only 'Aryans', i.e.
Hindus, are real Indians”, which, as we will see in detail in this article,
is an outright and a brazen lie.

3. Finally, in the same above summary, he advises all scholars
studying the Indo-European question (or perhaps any historical question
involving India)
to suppress facts and self-censor their own studies and conclusions so as not
to provide any quotable material favorable to any “Indian nationalist” agenda: “Indo-Europeanists must exercise caution, lest they unwittingly
support ideologically motivated agendas”

We will
examine in detail these three ideological equations supposed to represent the
sum total of my three books.

“Aryans”=Hindus

To begin
with, I have made it clear everywhere in my books that the word “Aryan” is a
word which just incidentally came to be applied to what we would now call the
“Indo-European” languages, and after the Nazi misuse of the word, it is usually
used only for the “Indo-Iranian” languages, whose oldest texts, the Rigveda and
the Avesta, seem to use the word in a first-person sense. It is therefore a
purely linguistic word which applies to languages and not to a group of people.

Again, wherever
the word is used in my books for a group of people even in the linguistic sense
of “people speaking the Indo-European languages”, it is only used for the
hypothetical Proto-Indo-European speakers (mainly in quotations or discussions
where the word is so used), or, more regularly for the ancient Vedic people in
the phrase “Vedic Aryans” (the word “Vedic” always a necessary part of the
combined phrase).

The use of
the word in a racial or ethnic sense to be identified with any living community
of the present day has been completely rejected by me in detail right from my
first book in a full chapter “The Racial
Evidence” (TALAGERI 1993a:236-253).

Further, I
have, in great detail, throughout my three books, made it clear that even from
the Indian Homeland point of view, the “Vedic Aryans” were not the ancestral
race of the entire present-day population of India in any sense of the term. The
“Vedic Aryans” were just one of many tribes inhabiting North
India in ancient times. Specifically, “the Vedic Aryans were the Purus of the
ancient texts. And in fact, the particular Vedic Aryans of the Rigveda were one
section among these Purus, who called
themselves Bharatas” (TALAGERI 2000:138), the Purus/Bharatas being the
ancient inhabitants of Haryana, eastern Punjab
and western U.P.

And, for
people whose dull brains fail to get the detailed messages repeatedly hammered
throughout the pages of my three voluminous books, I once again reiterated in
the last chapter of my third book: “there
is no direct ethnic connection between the identities of different peoples of
the Rigvedic period and the identities of actual different peoples living in
present-day India, or indeed in the world today” (TALAGERI 2008:363), and,
even more specifically, ”Nor is there
any group, caste or community in India which can be directly identified ethnically with the Purus: neither the
inhabitants (or particular castes from among them) of present-day Haryana, U.P.
or Punjab, nor the different Brahmin groups, found in every part of India,
which claim direct descent from the different families of rsis of the Rigveda….In short, the history of Vedic times is
just that: the history of Vedic times.
It has to do with the history of civilizations and language families, and must
be recognized as such; but it does not have anything
whatsoever to do with relations between different ethnic, caste or communal
groups of the present day. The biases and conflicts of ancient times are the
biases and conflicts of ancient peoples with
whom present day peoples have no direct connections” (TALAGERI 2008:365-6).

These are
just a few quotations from my three books. I could produce countless more such
quotations to show that I have continuously reiterated that the word “Aryans”
can not be used even in any ethnic sense, let alone in a religious sense, for any group or community of people of the
present day. Can anyone produce even one quotation to the contrary from my
three books to show that I have in
fact identified “Aryans” with a specific present day group of people, let alone
a religious group like Hindus?

Only “Aryans” are “Real Indians”

When
I have nowhere identified Aryans with any modern day group of people, is it
possible that “Only ‘Aryans’ are
‘Real Indians’” could in any way be a central point of the case presented
in my books?

[Incidentally,
I have not used the phrase “real Indians”
even once in my three books or anywhere else. In fact, I can not even imagine
what such a phrase would be supposed to mean. What for example would be the
opposite of “real Indians”: false
Indians, fake Indians, unreal Indians, imaginary Indians, fictional Indians,
counterfeit Indians, “lies-lies” Indians …?]

In my very
introduction to my first book, I wrote: “In
India
today the languages spoken by Indians belong to six language families:
1.Indo-European (Aryan)… 2.Dravidian… 3.Austric… 4.Sino-Tibetan…
5.Andamanese… 6.Burushaski” (TALAGERI 1993a:3). Does this statement somehow
indicate that I am saying that only the “Aryan” language speaking people are
“Real Indians”, while those speaking languages belonging to any of the other
families are not? Is there any other statement anywhere throughout my three
books which even hints at such an idea?

Only
Hindus are “Real Indians”

Now when I
say that Indians speak languages belonging to these six language
families, does it mean that only the Hindus among the speakers of these six
language families are “Real Indians”, while the Muslims and Christians are not?
Is there in fact a single statement anywhere in my three books which indicates
that?

I have, in
these three extraneous chapters (included only in version 1993a of my first
book, but excluded in version 1993b, which, like the two later books, is purely
academic and technical in its contents), successfully countered the political
ideologies which flourish in India, leftist and rightist, which are based on
the theory that Hinduism is the evolved form of a foreign religion brought into
India by “Aryan” invaders in 1500 BCE and therefore analogous to Christianity
and Islam which were foreign religions brought into India by imperialist
invaders. I have examined the issue from every angle and pointed out, that
“Aryan invasion” or not, Hinduism is a totally (”Real”?) Indian religion while
Christianity and Islam are totally foreign religions, and that “while Hinduism Indianizes foreigners, Islam
and Christianity foreignize or de-Indianize Indians” (TALAGERI 1993a:47).

This may
be a bitter pill for many people to swallow, and it may even seem irrelevant to
many, but is it technically incorrect? Can anyone prove, to take the very first
and simplest premise, that Kashi, Ayodhya Mathura, Madurai, Rameshwaram, Tirupati, Puri, etc.
are geographically located outside India, or that Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem,
Bethlehem, Karbala, the Vatican, etc., are geographically located inside India?
That the Hindu texts portray an area outside India, with heroes and religious
figures from those lands, or that the religious texts of Christianity and Islam
portray an area inside India
with Indian heroes and religious figures? Will even any Christian or Muslim in
his senses make any such assertion?

But is
Hock so mentally retarded as to conclude that when I describe Christianity and
Islam, and the cultures brought in by these two religions and adopted by
converts, as “foreign” or “non-Indian”, in contrast with Hinduism and its
culture which are “Indian”, I am automatically saying that “Only Hindus are ‘Real Indians’”? Is
there no difference between religious and cultural ideologies on the one hand,
and flesh and blood human beings on the other? Can anyone produce a single
statement in all my three books, and in my other writings, where I even suggest
that “Only Hindus are ‘Real Indians’”?

In fact,
note the following clear statements from those very three chapters where I
describe (and which I do only to make very clear, point by point, the falseness
of those who try to brand Hinduism as a foreign religion like Islam and
Christianity) the Indianness of Hinduism in contrast with the foreignness of
Islam and Christianity: I firmly reject the “petty and ridiculous idea of dividing Indians into ‘outsiders’ and
‘insiders’ on the basis of whether or not their ancestors actually, or
supposedly, came from outside” (TALAGERI 1993a:47), I point out that “in historic times, there were invasions of
India by Persians, Greeks, Scythians, Kushans and Huns. Many of the invaders
stayed in India
and got integrated into the population. Today some anthropologist may manage to
dig out material and claim that some community, or the other, constitutes the
descendants of one, or the other, of those invaders. But who would treat such a
claim, even if it were proved beyond any doubt, as the basis for branding that
community as a ‘foreign’ community? Indian society and culture have been known
for their capacity for synthesis and assimilation, and every single foreign
community entering India,
right from ancient times, has been completely absorbed into the Indian identity”.
(TALAGERI 1993a:46)

Do I
exclude Muslims and Christians from this Indian identity? “Muslim and Christian fundamentalists may identify wholly with their
foreign brethren, and some Muslims may even gloat at the idea that they are the
descendants of Islamic heroes who ‘conquered and ruled’ a land teeming with kafirs, the fact remains that they
are all Indians, as much as the Hindus” (TALAGERI 1993a:46).

In fact,
the only reason why the three chapters were written at all was not to promote
any “ideologically motivated agenda”,
but to counter already flourishing
and viciously active “ideologically
motivated agendas” which are wreaking havoc on the Indian body politic by
propagating on a war footing that Brahmins or “upper castes” in general are the
descendants of “Aryan invaders”, and only “lower castes” or “tribals” or “South
Indians” are “indigenous people”. These “ideologically
motivated agendas” are widely promoted by anarchist, leftist, missionary,
and anti-Hindu elements in India,
and “Indo-Europeanists” like Hock “unwittingly [or deliberately] support [these] ideologically
motivated agendas”.

Far
from claiming that the Aryan invasion theory, or its opposite, the Indian
homeland theory, has present day implications for India, I end my three
extraneous chapters as follows: “Did,
indeed any ‘Aryans’ ever invade, or even immigrate into India from outside?
Shorn of its leftist and anti-Hindu corollaries, this becomes a purely
academic question with no present-day political implications. This academic
question will be dealt with in the next two sections of this book” (TALAGERI
1993a:47). Consequently, the rest of the book (=1993b), as well as my next two
books (2000, 2008) are purely academic analyses of the Indo-European homeland
question.

So when
Hock sums up the case presented in my three books as "only
'Aryans', i.e. Hindus, are real Indians; e.g. Talageri 1993ab, 2008",
would it be an exaggeration or in any way wrong to say that we have here a case
of a fake and fraudulent “scholar”, in pursuance of his own “ideologically motivated agenda”, calculatedly
lying through his teeth to spread libelous canards against another writer whom
he wishes to malign?

Only “Aryan” religion/culture, i.e. Hindu religion/culture,
is Real Indian religion/culture

Hock talks
of flesh and blood people when he summarizes my books in one line as “only 'Aryans', i.e. Hindus, are real Indians; e.g.
Talageri 1993ab, 2008”. Can
we assume that what he may actually be meaning is that my three chapters are
claiming that “Only “Aryan” religion/culture,
i.e. Hindu religion/culture, is Real Indian religion/culture”? That is not
what he actually says, and in any case it does not excuse his insolence in
treating the content of my three extraneous chapters as the sum total of my
books and case, but let us examine if what I have written in my books and in my
other writings amounts to even that.

Today,
there are many Indians who are so proud of their Vedic heritage and of the
Sanskrit language that they like to imagine Vedic civilization to have been the
ancestral civilization of the whole world. To such people, Vedic religion is
definitely at least the ancestral religion of the whole of India, the fountainhead
from which all aspects of Indian religion have developed, and all other
cultures within India are derived from Sanskrit/Vedic culture and must be
further Sanskritized/Hinduized to make them really Indian. There are many writers,
organizations and internet sites which promote such views. Am I also saying the
same thing in my books?

To begin
with religion: in the third of these three chapters, entitled ”Hinduism as an ‘Aryan’ religion and the
‘Aryans’ as foreigners” (TALAGERI 1993a:35-47), I point out that as per the
Aryan Invasion theory itself “almost every aspect of Hinduism as we know
it today, certainly every feature relevant to the religion, is supposed to be
of ‘pre-Aryan’ origin” (TALAGERI 1993a:35). I elaborate in detail in this
chapter that the only “Aryan” aspects of Hinduism are supposed to be “‘worship…of the elements’ (fire, air,
water, sky) [….] ritual worship of
fire, in the form of yajna” (TALAGERI
1993a:34) and “the Sanskrit language and
the Vedic texts” (TALAGERI 1993a:40). I reiterate throughout this chapter
that apart from these, “all the
fundamental features of Hinduism are supposed to be ’pre-Aryan’” and that
as per the Aryan Invasion Theory itself, “Hinduism
is practically a ‘pre-Aryan’ [….] religion
adopted by the ‘Aryans’” (TALAGERI 1993a:39).

Is this
only “as per the Aryan Invasion theory itself” that this is so, and do I
present a different picture in my Out-of-India case? On the contrary, except
for my postulation that the original Indo-European homeland was in India, and
therefore the word “pre-Aryan” is meaningless in the context, my picture of
Hinduism is practically the same.

I postulate,
with evidence, that “the Vedic Aryans
were the Purus of the ancient texts. And in
fact, the particular Vedic Aryans of the Rigveda were one section among these Purus, who called themselves Bharatas” (TALAGERI 2000:138),
and they were inhabitants of Haryana, eastern Punjab
and western U.P. I describe the process of the formation of Hinduism from the
Vedic “Aryan” religion, in my very first book itself, as follows: “The modern Indo-Aryan languages are not
descendants of the Rigvedic dialects, but of other dialects which were
contemporaneous with the Rigvedic dialects, but which belonged to a different
section of Indo-European speech (the Inner Indo-European section). The Vedic
dialects died away in the course of time, and their speech area [….] was taken over by the Inner Indo-European
dialects. But long before they died away, the Vedic dialects had set in motion a
powerful wave of a cult movement which covered the entire nation in its sweep. This
Vedic cult also finally gave way to the local pan-Indian religion of the
Inner-Indo-Europeans and Dravidian-language speakers, but continued to
remain in force as the elite layer of this pan-Indian religion” (TALAGERI 1993a:230).
The “Vedic Aryan” religion of the Purus, as exemplified in the Rigveda and
subsequent Samhitas, was rather like the Iranian religion of the Anus found in
the Avesta, and most of the fundamental, common and most popular aspects of
Hinduism today are originally features of religious systems of the Inner
Indo-European (tribal conglomerates other than the Purus and Anus), Dravidian
and Austric language speakers of mainland India. This is the hypothesis I have
been postulating throughout my three books.

Whether or
not anyone, from either side, likes this formulation or agrees with it,
certainly no-one can claim that I am pushing an agenda equating “‘Aryan’ religion” with Hinduism.

The same
goes for culture in general, and even more so. The context did not arise in the
three extraneous chapters (in 1993a) which have been made the basis of an
ideological indictment of my entire case by this dodgy “scholar”. But in my
other writings, I have discussed Hindu nationalism and Indian culture in great
detail, notably in my 2005 article on Hindu Nationalism (TALAGERI 2005).

In this
article, I have described in great detail the greatness and richness of Indian
culture, and quoting myself from an earlier 1997 article, I wrote: “Indian culture refers not just to the
cultural practices springing from Vedic or Sanskritic sources, but from all
other Indian sources independently of these: the practices of the Andaman
islanders and the (pre-Christian) Nagas are as Hindu in the territorial sense,
and Sanatana in the spiritual sense, as classical Sanskritic Hinduism” (TALAGERI
2005:252). Further on in the article, again quoting myself from an earlier 2002
article, I categorically pointed out: “I
am opposed to even internal cultural imperialism. The idea that Vedic or
Sanskrit culture represents Indian culture and that other cultures within India
are its subcultures and must be incorporated into it, is wrong….All other
cultures native to this land: the culture of the Andaman islanders, the Nagas,
the Mundas, the tribes of Arunachal Pradesh, etc. are all Indian in their own
right. They don’t have to be – and should not be – Sanskritized to make them
Indian” (TALAGERI 2005:293).

In the
same article I wrote at length about how the Andamanese culture (not “Aryan” by
any stretch of the term, and Hindu only in the sense that everything indigenous
to India can be called Hindu) was being destroyed in the name of modernism,
development, and “mainstream” nationalism, and wrote: “It will not be an exaggeration to say that the day on which the last of
the Andamanese tribals breathes his last breath will be one of the blackest
days in our modern human history, in more ways than one. Indian culture will be
very much the poorer by one of its three native races and by one of its six
native language families, apart from the different other aspects, most of them
probably unrecorded, of Andamanese culture” (TALAGERI 2005:290).

Does all
this show that I represent the ideological agenda that “Only ‘Aryan’, i.e. Hindu, culture is Real Indian culture”?
Obviously, my clear “ideological” stance is that everything indigenous and
native to India
is Indian; and that it as Indian as Vedic or Sanskrit culture.

Further,
while I have made it very clear in my three extraneous chapters in 1993a, in
response to the Secularist and Leftist practice of branding everything Hindu as
“communal” and everything Christian and Muslim as “secular”, that Hinduism is
Indian and Christianity and Islam are foreign (not, as Hock libelously lies, that Hindus are Indian and
non-Hindu Christians and Muslims are foreign), note what I have written in this
more detailed 2005 article on Indian culture: “Now, most Muslims in India belong to communities that converted
centuries ago. The same is the case with Christian communities in certain,
particularly coastal areas. Their culture (de-Indianized or otherwise) is,
therefore, in many ways, an intrinsic part of our modern Indian ethos, and
these communities are an intrinsic part of Indian society” (TALAGERI 2005:274-5).
Further on, I added, even more specifically: “I will go further here. In my 1993 book, The Aryan Invasion Theory and
Indian nationalism, p.33, I have, rightly in that context, criticized the
secularist media for the ‘calculated glorification of Urdu, of Lucknowi tehzib,
of the Moghuls, of gazals and qawwalis, etc.’ But the truth is that all this is
also a part, and a rich part, of our modern Indian ethos” (TALAGERI 2005:293).

I could
give many more quotations from my writings, including the three extraneous
chapters in 1993a, which make it clear that I have nowhere written
anything which could be interpreted even as “Only “Aryan” religion/culture, i.e. Hindu religion/culture, is Real
Indian religion/culture”, let alone as the “only
'Aryans', i.e. Hindus, are real Indians” that Hock libelously
propagates, and no-one will be able to produce a single quotation from my
writings to defend Hock’s lies.

But the
important question here is: why is this “mild-mannered
professor” lying through his teeth with missionary zeal to propagate the
idea that my entire case presented in three volumes, full of detailed, complete
and authentic data never before collected and presented so systematically and
conclusively [yes, I know I am saying this about my own books, but I dare to
say it because it is true], adds up only to the ideological agenda that “only 'Aryans', i.e. Hindus, are real Indians”?

What is my Case?

My three
books present a complete case for an Indo-European Homeland in India theory
which simply can not be challenged:

1A. In my third book, I analyze, with complete
data from the Rigveda, the Avesta and the Mitanni “Aryan” records, the
comparative chronological position of the three texts (taking the Mitanni data
as representing a text), and show that (a) the Mitanni and Avestan cultures constitute
a common culture with the culture of the Late or New books of the Rigveda
(books 1,5, 8-10), which continues on into later Vedic and post-Vedic Indian
texts, while (b) the culture of the Early or Old books of the Rigveda (books
2-4, 6-7) represents a different and considerably older and more archaic
culture ancestral to all the three streams (Late Rigvedic, Avestan, Mitanni).
[I also show that the division of the books of the Rigveda into Early or Old
books 2-4, 6-7, and Late or New books 1,5, 8-10, is not only proved on the
basis of umpteen criteria cited by me in detail, but is also the official
division of the books by a consensus among Western academic scholars].

1B. I
further show, by a detailed analysis of the complete geographical data in the
Rigveda, including historical descriptions in the text of the expanding horizon
of the Vedic Aryans, that the areas to the west of the Indus become familiar
territory to the Vedic Aryans only in the period of the Late or New books,
while the geography of the Early or Old Books shows the Vedic Aryans as old
inhabitants of the areas to the east of the Sarasvati (Ghaggar-Hakra) only just
expanding westwards into the Land of the Five Rivers. This shows that the
common culture (Late Rigvedic, Avestan, Mitanni) developed in the Land of
the Five Rivers out of an earlier
culture which had expanded into the Land of the Five Rivers from areas to the east of of the Sarasvati (Ghaggar-Hakra)
from the interior of India. Therefore,
the ancestors of the composers of the Avesta (in Afghanistan), and of the Mitanni kings
(in Iraq,
Syria
and Egypt),
were emigrants from the Land of the five Rivers.

1C. While
the Rigveda and the Avesta can not be materially dated, the dated Mitanni data
from Syria
and Iraq
goes back beyond 1500 BCE, and the related Kassite evidence goes back beyond
1700 BCE, already as the dead residual
culture of remote ancestors. This automatically places the entry of these
remote ancestors into West Asia at least a few
centuries prior to 1700 BCE, and their departure from the Land of the Five
Rivers a few centuries even before that. Even at minimum estates, the ancestors
of the Mitanni
left the Land of the Five Rivers well in the second half of the third
millennium BCE. This places the beginnings of the common culture (Late
Rigvedic, Avestan, Mitanni)
in the Land of the Five Rivers at least
at 2500 BCE. The considerably older and more archaic culture of the Vedic
Aryans of the Early or Old Books (2-4, 6-7) of the Rigveda, who originally
expanded into the land of the Five Rivers from the east of the Sarasvati
(Ghaggar-Hakra), therefore must go back, again at minimum estimates, well beyond 3000 BCE.

1D. The
Vedic Aryans of the Early or Old books of the Rigveda (books 2-4, 6-7) can
therefore be securely dated minimally well
beyond 3000 BCE. In that period, these Vedic Aryans, on the basis of
the data in these books, are settled inhabitants of the areas to the east of
the Sarasvati (Ghaggar-Hakra), in present-day Haryana, Western U.P., and
adjoining areas, in an area which then, as now, is purely Indo-European
(“Aryan”) in a linguistic sense: the texts do not know a single person, friend
or enemy, in the area, speaking Dravidian, Austric, or any other non-Indo-European
language, the names of the people, rivers, animals trees, of the area are all
purely “Aryan”, and they are yet totally unfamiliar with areas to the west of
the Indus, and only just expanding into the Land of the Five Rivers from the
east.

1E. As per
all the linguistic evidence and consensus among the western academic scholars,
the various branches of the Indo-European language family were still together
in a chain of contact in the Original Homeland in 3500 BCE, and started
separating from each other only after that as different branches expanded away
from the homeland. The above minimal secure date well beyond 3000 BCE for the Vedic Aryans of the Old Books of the
Rigveda, therefore, proves beyond doubt that the epicenter of the expansions of
the Indo-Europeans was from the Land of the Five Rivers and its peripheral
areas to the west, i.e. the Harappan civilization of the period was the
epicenter of the Indo-European expansions, and India was the Original
Indo-European homeland.

2. If the
Vedic Aryans were originally inhabitants of a certain area (Haryana, western
U.P., and surrounding areas), and the data in the Rigveda shows them expanding
westwards into the Land of the Five Rivers in a certain period, who were the
people living to their west and east? If the joint Indo-Europeans were together
in their Homeland around 3500 BCE, in a historical period when other
civilizations (Mesopotamia, Egypt, China) were leaving their archaeological and
historical imprints, why is it that the Indo-Europeans, whose every branch in
every part of Asia and Europe left us imprints of great historic civilizations
in later times, were so mysteriously faceless and anonymous in their Original
Homeland and left no archaeological or historical imprints at all? The answer
is: they have left us full fledged
imprints. I have shown in my books, again beyond challenge, that the Vedic
Aryans were the Purus of our Puranic traditions; the Anus to their west, and
the Druhyus further west, were the ancestors of the Indo-European branches
which emigrated from India; the Yadus, Turvasus and others to the east of the
Purus in northern India were the ancestors of other Inner Indo-European groups
which became largely Sanskritized in later times, and of course, the
non-Indo-European speakers of Dravidian and Austric languages were the
inhabitants of southern and eastern India. The Rigveda describes the great
Dasarajna war between the expanding Purus and
the Anu tribes of the land of the Five Rivers. The Anu tribes named are the
ancestors of the “Southern” Indo-European branches of later times: Iranian
(Parsava, Parthava, Paktha, Bhalana, etc.), Armenian/Phrygian (Bhrgu),
Greek/Hellene (Alina) and Albanian/Sirmio (Simyu), who started expanding
westwards after the war. The Puranas describe earlier emigrations of the
Druhyus from Afghanistan
northwards: the expansions of the “Northern” Indo-European branches of later
times (Anatolian, Tocharian, Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic), whose
priests were the Drui (Druids). The Harappan civilization is the Indo-Iranian
civilization of the joint Purus and Anus.

3. Any
Indo-European Homeland theory has to fulfill all the linguistic requirements
and explain all the problematic linguistic phenomena which are peculiar to the
interconnections between different branches. The fact is that the consensus
candidate, South Russia, fails to do this;
but, for the want of a better alternative (other candidates like Anatolia are even less tenable), it has been firmly
upheld by the scholars, and all unexplainable factors and anomalies have been
swept under the carpet. However, in my second book, and more completely in my
third book, I have shown how the Indian Homeland theory explains every single valid linguistic factor and
phenomenon, and nothing has to be swept under the carpet. I have presented a
complete linguistic case which moreover fits in with the textual evidence of
two waves of migrations of the “Southern” and “Northern” branches.

In the
face of all the massive and complete data, analysis and conclusions presented
in my books regarding all this, isn’t it rather strange that Hock refers to my
three books as the major representatives of one particular point of view on the
Indo-European question, but completely ignores everything written by me in connection with all the above data, and
treats the three extraneous chapters in one version of my first book (1993a) as
representing the sum total of the case presented by me, and further completely falsifies the content of even
those three extraneous chapters, ultimately narrowing down my whole case to an
imaginary and even meaningless “ideological
agenda”: “'Aryans', i.e. Hindus, are real
Indians; e.g. Talageri 1993ab, 2008”?

What is
Hock’s purpose behind this brazen and cowardly falsehood? Is this in any way
any kind of honest scholarship? Is it motivated by some kind of “ideologically motivated agenda”? Now I
can not imagine what this agenda could be. I can not assume leftist, or
missionary-inspired, or anti-Hindu motives, with the same glibness with which Hock
encapsulates my entire case in one insolent and false sentence. The truth seems
to be that the most important “agenda” in western academic circles today is
Self Preservation.

A scholar
is confronted with a new point of view, diametrically opposite to the view he
himself has been holding and disseminating over the decades. What can he do?
(a) He can either completely ignore the new viewpoint and act as if he does not
know it even exists; (b) he can examine the data, analysis and conclusions
presented in the opposite viewpoint, and either accept it if it is right and
admit that he himself stands corrected, or else point out all the data-errors
and flawed logic in the opposite viewpoint and show where it fails; or (c) he
can play a game of “scholarly” tactics to obfuscate the issues.

Hock
clearly belongs to the third category. A well-entrenched, reputed and respected
professor, with the whole weight behind him of his University and a whole body
of similarly entrenched scholars who have been writing on the same lines, and “buttressed by the weight of two centuries
of scholarship” (as Erdosy put it in another context), can do quite a lot
by way of political activity; and Hock seems to have decided to do quite a lot.
In the last few years, Hock has launched an all-out disinformation campaign
against the Out-of-India theory, with University talks, articles, and
video-talks on internet media like Youtube.

Hock’s Blatant Hypocrisy

Initially,
before he realized the formidable nature of the Out-of-India theory (as
presented in my books) that he was up against, Hock’s “mild-mannered professor” act – the role of an unbiased, reasonable
and honest scholar willing to objectively examine the Out-of-India case, to
make a friendly and avuncular assessment of what the Out-of-India exponents
were trying to say, and to concede minor valid points while showing how the
Out-of-India case failed to pass logical and intellectual muster even after
these concessions were made – was in full force.

In an
article “Historical Interpretation of
the Vedic Texts”, in 2005 (in a volume, which, incidentally, also carried
an article by myself entitled: “The Textual
Evidence: the Rigveda as a Source of Indo-European History”, p.332-340,
written and sent to the editors at least six years earlier), Hock (who also may
have submitted his article similarly early, since his bibliography mentions my
first book of 1993, but not my second book published in 2000) portrayed his
neutrality:

His introduction (HOCK 2005:282-3)
to the article presents a very reasonable stand: he points out that there
can be “two very different
approaches to the study of the Vedic tradition, or of any tradition”:
one approach is that of “somebody
who already knows the truth [….] and
is therefore able to characterize all those who do not agree as being
blind to that truth”, and the other is that of “scholars who consider truth to be their ultimate goal, but realize
that truth is always conditional, to be superseded by better evidence or
interpretation of evidence”.Hock points out that “the
problem with the first view as applied to scholarship is that its goal is
to forestall all dissenting voices and that it therefore does not invite
meaningful debate”, and proceeds to give a very broad and reasonable description
of how open and honest such a debate should be.

He even-handedly takes up three
Aryan Invasion interpretations and three Indian Origin interpretations
from the Vedic texts, and cautions us at the very outset (HOCK 2005:283) that “the passages in question and their interpretation do not provide
cogent support for the hypotheses they are supposed to support”, while
reasonably conceding that “this
does not mean that either of the two theories is therefore invalidated. It
merely means that the evidence in question is not sufficiently cogent to
provide support for the respective hypothesis and therefore must be
considered irrelevant. First of all, neither hypothesis rests solely on
the evidence here examined; and it is in principle perfectly possible that
other evidence can show one hypothesis to be superior to the other”.
He even reasonably concedes the possibility that “any new evidence or better interpretation would, in true
scientific spirit, be able to overturn the so far victorious hypothesis”,
or that “in principle none of the
currently available evidence stands up under scrutiny and that
nevertheless, one or the other hypothesis was historically coreect, except
that the evidence in its favour has not been preserved for us”. [The
Aryan Invasion arguments he debunks (HOCK 2005:283-292) are “Dialectal
variation due to Dravidian influence”, “Racial differences between āryas
and dāsas/dasyus” and “Textual evidence for Aryan
in-migration”, and two of the Indian Origin arguments he debunks (HOCK
2005:295-303) are Astronomical evidence in the Kauşītakī Brāhmaņa for
dating the Vedas?” and “Rig-Vedic astronomical evidence for dating
the Vedas?” As I also place little or no credence on the
“astronomical” arguments derived from Vedic texts, I find his arguments in
all these respects perfectly reasonable. The third Indian Origin argument
he claims to debunk is supposed to be an argument made by me in my first
book. I will deal with this in the next section of this article].

And in his conclusion to the
article, he writes: ”Personally, I
feel that most of the evidence and arguments that have been offered in
favor either of the Aryan In-Migration hypothesis or of the Out-of-India
are inconclusive at closer examination” (HOCK 2005:303).

When it
comes to “analyzing” silly, isolated arguments, and picking the silliest of
them to “rebut” with detailed logical explanations, Hock shows a very great
propensity to debate the issues at length to arrive at the “truth”. Note the
number and variety of ways in which he advocates an unbiased and open approach
based on free discussions, in the introduction to the one above article itself:

He emphasizes
an approach where truth is the “ultimate
goal”, but “truth is always
conditional, to be superseded by better evidence or interpretation of evidence”
(HOCK 2005:282).

The aim
should be not to “forestall all dissenting voices”, but (a)
to “invite meaningful debate”; (b) “to invite the scholarly challenges and
ensuingdebate that can lead to
better insights and closer approximation of the truth”; (c) “to go beyond what can be grasped at first
contact, and as a consequence of having to defend perceptions against competing
views, to investigate matters more thoroughly”; (d) to “approximate truth more closely”; (d) to “go beyond initial impressions and beyond the validation of preconceived
interpretations”; (e) to “embrace
the scientific approach of being transparent
and vulnerable – transparent by being
open to verification in terms of providing supporting evidence and discussing
potentially conflicting evidence, and vulnerable by being open to challenge and
potential falsification“; (f) “to
evaluate the very different perspectives that are current and thus to reach
beyond the differences in perspective, ideology or bias” (HOCK 2005:282-3).

He also
expresses his opinion about the Vedas that “whatever their original and/or secondary purposes may have been, they
were not intended as data bases for latter-day historians”, and suggests
that “whatever historical evidence they
contain, therefore, can only be gleaned by a careful, philologically
well-grounded reading of the lines – and between the lines – of the texts”
(HOCK 2005:303).He emphasizes the need
for “other” and “better” evidence (than astronomical
references in the Rigveda) “to establish
a date for the Rigveda” (HOCK 2005:303) and (than isolated words in the
Avesta) to determine “historical movements
in the Indo-Iranian linguistic territory” (HOCK 2005:295).

Best of
all is his classic ending, declaring his honesty and openness: “Throughout I have endeavored to live up to
the desiderata outlined at the beginning, namely being transparent and vulnerable
– transparent by providing supporting evidence that is easily available to
verification, and vulnerable by being open to challenge and potential
falsification. As I stated at the outset, this, I believe, is the only way that
we can establish a common ground for those working in Vedic studies. Without
this common ground there is nothing to evaluate the many conflicting theories
without either questioning each others’ motives, or saying ‘Trust me, trust
me’. As I tell my students: If people merely say ‘Trust me, trust me’, don’t
trust them, don’t trust them. And as to questioning each others’ motives, it is
good to note that people as different in their motives as Elst and Zydenbos
have stated on the Indology List that what really counts is the evidence and
its interpretation – even racists and communalists can come to correct results
if their evidence and their methodology are correct (however much we may
deplore their ideologies and biases)” (HOCK 2005:303-4).

But now,
presented not with silly, isolated and faulty “arguments” which can be
laughingly rebutted, but with a full-fledged, coherent and well-knit case,
covering all the textual, linguistic and archaeological points, and bursting
with detailed data, evidence and analyses from the Rigvedic (as well as the
Avestan and Mitanni) data bases, and conclusively establishing “a date for the Rigveda” as well as “historical movements in the Indo-Iranian
linguistic territory”, he completely refuses to even pretend to look at the extremely
detailed data, evidence and analyses, turns his back on all his earlier
tall claims advocating openness, honest debate, and “truth” as the ultimate
goal, and runs off from any debate on the pretext that my entire case only
consists of the proposition that “'Aryans', i.e.
Hindus, are real Indians; e.g. Talageri 1993ab, 2008”. Thus he
completely abandons honest debate for the policies of political name-calling
and label-sticking, and falls back on “Trust
me, trust me” as his only resort.

Further, now
he openly advocates the policy of disinformation, concealment and suppression: “Indo-Europeanists must exercise caution, lest they
unwittingly support ideologically motivated agendas”!

Hock’s “Scholarly” Tactics of Disinformation

The above,
with a few concluding remarks, should have been the logical ending of this
article. But, to illustrate Hock’s propensity to concentrate only on giving
“intelligent” dissections of silly, isolated arguments, or his propensity to
make such arguments himself (even as he resorts to “spit and run” tactics and
runs off in the opposite direction when it comes to examining serious and
unassailable case presentations), let us end with examining some of Hock’s
tactics of disinformation.

I give
four minor examples from within the same above article “Historical Interpretation of the Vedic Texts” (2005):

1.
Even as he debunks the Aryan Invasion argument that the Rigveda offers evidence
of racial differences between aryas
and dasas/dasyus, he makes the following comment: “The archaeological evidence at this point does not support an
in-migration of a different racial group in the entire second millennium BC;
but then it also fails to furnish evidence for the well-established later
in-migrations of Sakas, Hunas, and many other groups. So this evidence, too, fails
to yield reliable results” (HOCK 2005:290).

Thus,
Hock here subtly discounts the Anti-Invasion argument (made, it may be noted,
by eminent archaeologists in the field, and not initially by “Hindu
nationalists”) that archaeology totally repudiates the idea of an Aryan
invasion in the second millennium BCE. But note the totally incongruous and
untenable analogy that he presents:

“Sakas, Hunas and many other groups”
were small groups of people who entered India, and left the imprint of
their in-migrations (which are “well-established”
in historical memory, in Hock’s own words). And they got submerged into the
indigenous population, completely losing their original language, culture and
identity.

The
“Aryans”, on the other hand, whether
in small or big groups, have left no imprint of their alleged in-migrations at
all: neither in archaeology, nor in their own earliest and most detailed texts,
nor in the memories or traditions of the indigenous populations. Their alleged
in-migration only surfaced when European colonial scholars in the last few
centuries discovered the relationship between their own languages and those of
northern India,
and theoretically postulated such an in-migration as the explanation for this
relationship. And these “Aryans” are
alleged to have swamped the whole of northern India, completely replacing the
indigenous languages with their own (leaving not a trace of even the very
existence of those original languages). And not only languages: “complete
systems of belief, mythology and language [….] not only new languages but also of an entire complex of material and
spiritual culture, ranging from chariotry and horsemanship to Indo-Iranian
poetry whose complicated conventions are still actively used in the Ṛgveda. The old Indo-Iranian religion, centred
on the opposition of Devas and Asuras, was also adopted, along with
Indo-European systems of ancestor worship.” (WITZEL 1995:112).
And, moreover, their alleged impact was so absolute that even the rivers of northern
India have purely “Aryan” names even in the oldest texts, with no traces or
memories of earlier “non-Aryan” names, a situation unparalleled in world
history!

Surely,
unlike the “established”
in-migrations of “many other groups”,
this purely theoretical in-migration should have left unmistakable imprints in
the archaeological records; and Hock’s analogy is purely guided by a motivated
agenda.

In
an earlier article in 1996 published in 1999, Hock had made the same above
silly analogy with even more untenable additions: “Interestingly,skeletal
continuity seems also to hold for later, historical periods ─ even though we know for certain that there
were numerous migrations or invasions into South Asia, by groups as diverse as
the Greeks, the Central Asian Huns, the Iranian Sakas, and Muslims from Iran,
Central Asia, and even the Arab world” (HOCK 1999b:161). The Muslims were
also small in number, but, unlike the Vedic Aryans, they were armed with a
militant proselytizing ideology which compelled
them to Islamize local populations, in spite of which the local populations
managed to retain their original religion on a major scale. And in all these instances, detailed records
and memories, and other factors like the original “Aryan” hydronomy and
languages, have remained as witnesses to the pre-Islamic past, unlike in the
case of the alleged Indo-Aryan “migrations
or invasions”.

2.
Again, even as he debunks the Aryan Invasion argument that there is textual
evidence in the Rigveda for in-migration, Hock makes another similar point.
Referring to “the claim of opponents of
the so-called ‘Aryan Invasion Theory’ (e.g. Rajaram and Frawley 1997:233) that
there is no indigenous tradition of an outside origin”, Hock comments: “but note that with the claimed exception of
Avestan for which see section 8.5, and the fanciful self-derivation of the Romans
from Troy, none of the ancient Indo-European traditions are aware of an origin
outside their settlement areas either” (HOCK 1995:291-2).

Again,
the analogy is obviously untenable. Unlike the other ancient Indo-Europeans
outside India, who are already well entrenched in their territories long enough
to have no memories or traditions of outside origins, and indeed have left us
no records of what their earliest memories and traditions were anyway, the Rigveda is supposed to have been composed by a
people (a) so close to the original “Proto-Indo-European” culture that “in its original language we see the roots
and shoots of the languages of Greek and Latin, of Kelt, Teuton and Slavonian,
so the deities, the myths, and the religious beliefs and practices of the Veda
throw a flood of light upon the religions of all European countries before the
introduction of Christianity” (Griffith), its religion being so close to
the primitive Indo-European roots that the Vedic gods “are nearer to the physical phenomena which they represent, than the
gods of any other Indo-European mythology” (Macdonell), (b) so passionately
devoted to tradition that every single aspect of their tradition was meticulously
kept alive in detailed texts in oral form for thousands of years without
changing even a word or a syllable, and (c) so new to the area that they were
still totally unacquainted with any part of India east or south of the
westernmost Ganga, and even allegedly with the tiger so often depicted on
Harappan seals.

Surely,
in the above circumstances, total absence of extra-territorial traditions in
the Rigveda is indeed a strong argument against the “Aryan Invasion Theory”,
and Hock’s analogy is silly and untenable.

3.
In the above article “Historical
Interpretation of the Vedic Texts” (2005), as already mentioned, Hock cites
and debunks six arguments (three from the Aryan Invasion side, and three from
the Indian Origin side), and as already mentioned, the arguments being
basically silly ones, he does so quite effectively in respect of the three
“Aryan Invasion“ aguments and two of the three Indian Origin arguments. The
sixth Indian Origin argument he debunks is supposed to have been made by me in
my first book (1993), and it being a silly one, he debunks it equally easily.
The only problem is: I did not make such
an argument at all in my 1993 book, or anywhere else!

In
my 1993 book, I had only examined all the “Aryan Invasion” arguments, and had
only prepared the basic framework of my Out-of-India theory; I had not yet
provided the formidable evidence I presented in my second book (2000) and
incontrovertibly proved in my third book (2008). Therefore, the Avestan/Iranian
evidence in my first book consisted mainly of preliminary arguments.

Hock
quotes the two following excerpts from my book, the first of which is from
P.L.Bhargava quoted by me, and the second being my own words: (a) ”The first chapter of the Vendidad or the
handbook of the Parsees enumerates sixteen holy lands created by Ahura Mazda
which were later rendered unfit for the residence of man (i.e. the ancestors of
the Iranians) on account of different things created by Angra Mainyu, the evil
spirit of the Avesta…The first of these lands was of course Airyana Vaejo which was abandoned by the
ancestors of the Iranians because of severe winter and snow; of the others, one
was Hapta Hindu, i.e. Saptasindhu”. (Bhargava quoted in TALAGERI
1993a:180). (b) “The Hapta Hindu
mentioned in the Vendidad is obviously the Saptasindhu (the Punjab
region), and the first land, ‘abandoned by the ancestors of the Iranians
because of severe winter and snow’ before they came to the Saptasindhu region
and settled down among the Vedic people, is obviously Kashmir”
(TALAGERI 1993a:180-1).

I
make three points here: (a) the Avesta (Vendidad) names Airyana Vaejo and Hapta
Hindu as two ancestral Iranian lands; (b) Hapta Hindu= Saptasindhu= the Punjab region; and (c) The first land Airyana Vaejo= Kashmir.

The
first two points are incontrovertible. The third one could have been contested
by Hock, and indeed, he does identify Airyana Vaejo with Khwarezmia (but he is
wrong: see my second book, 2000:189-194).

But
Hock, surprisingly, introduces an element not found in my book at all: he
claims that Hapta Hindu, found 15th in the list of 16 ancestral
Iranian lands, is assumed by Bhargava and me to be 2nd in the list,
and that on that basis we advocate “the
sequencing of regions as indicating migration” (HOCK 2005:295). He calls
this “the approach advocated by
Bhargava, Talageri, Rajaram and Frawley, and Elst” (HOCK 2005:295), and
even “the Bhargava-Talageri hypothesis”
(HOCK 2005:293), and spends four pages debunking this idea that the sequence of
regions in the Vendidad list indicates the route of migration, and showing that,
if it does, it in fact supports the In-Migration theory rather than the
Out-of-India theory!

But
nowhere has anyone claimed that the Avestan list indicates the sequence route
of migration or that Hapta Hindu is 2nd on the list! Bhargava, see
above, writes “of the others, one
was Hapta Hindu”, and I add nothing to that assertion, obviously, since
both of us know that Hapta Hindu is 15th on the list, and that the
list does not indicate the sequential order of migration. Yet, Hock claims to
have debunked my (“Bhargava-Talageri”) hypothesis!

4.
A peculiar feature of this above discussion of the Avesta (HOCK 2005:294-295)
is the two maps of India
featuring alongside. For some totally mysterious and unknown reason, Hock’s
maps show the Indus river flowing, not from Kashmir
into Pakistan
and out into the ocean through Sindh, but considerably farther to the east: the
Indus in his maps flows through the Indian
Punjab and Haryana, Rajasthan and Kutch, and
out into the ocean through Gujarat. Almost exactly
the route of the Sarasvati (Ghaggar-Hakra), which river itself is missing on
the maps! I am in no position to solve this mystery, or to offer any motive or
explanation for it.

I have
similarly shown some examples of disinformation in Hock’s writings, in my third
book (2008): (a) Hock’s assertion that the Mitanni word satta for Sanskrit sapta
(seven) is due to the influence of Hurrite šinti
rather than a Prakritic type development (2008:172-3), (b) Hock’s endorsement of
Witzel’s claim that there are two distinct Sarasvatis named in the Rigveda
(2008:115-121); (c) Hock’s similar endorsement of Witzel’s postulation of a
relay-race, passing the baton, kind of immigration process for the alleged
proto-Indo-Aryans from South Russia to India (2008:325-6, cf 2008:312-332). (d)
Most serious of all, Hock’s presentation of the Evidence of the Isoglosses as
the ultimate linguistic argument against the Indian Origin theory, with
deliberate omission of the Tocharian language and many important isoglosses
(which would have completely invalidated his argument) (2008:212-223). It was
this last, and my criticism of it in my book, which prompted Elst’s disapproval
of my seemingly harsh treatment of a “mild-mannered
professor”.

All this could have
been accepted (even the last, on Elst’s endorsement of Hock’s essential
fairness) as natural flaws in the argumentation of an unbiased scholar rather
than representations of a motivated agenda. This would seem to be corroborated
by Hock’s logical debunking of the three Aryan Invasion arguments “Dialectal
variation due to Dravidian influence”, “Racial differences between āryas
and dāsas/dasyus” and “Textual evidence for Aryan in-migration”
in his above article “Historical
Interpretation of the Vedic Texts” (2005), and in his repeated emphasis in
the article on the importance of arriving at the truth through unbiased debate
on the facts and evidence and their interpretation. Also, we have his much
quoted conclusions that the Brahui in Baluchistan
are the remnants of a migration from the south within the last two millenniums,
and not the remnants of an original Dravidian speaking population in the
northwest. And most important of all, his admissions (inanother article in 1996, published in 1999) that “….the
‘Sanskrit-origin’ hypothesis runs into insurmountable difficulties, due to the
irreversible nature of relevant linguistic changes [….but….] the likelihood of the ‘PIE-in-India’
hypothesis cannot be assessed on the basis of similar robust evidence” (HOCK
1999a:2), and that “The ‘PIE-in-India’
hypothesis is not as easily refuted as the ‘Sanskrit-origin’ hypothesis, since
it is not based on ‘hard-core’ linguistic evidence, such as sound changes,
which can be subjected to critical and definitive analysis. Its cogency can be
assessed only in terms of circumstantial arguments, especially arguments based
on plausibility and simplicity” (HOCK 1999a:12).

But the significant
point is that all these examples of an unbiased desire to examine the facts and
evidence in order to arrive at the truth, and to consider the opposing
arguments offered without laying emphasis on the real or assumed motives behind
those arguments, are from a different age. An age when opponents of the Aryan
Invasion theory only had quibbling arguments to offer against the theory, and
silly arguments to offer in support of an Indian Origin case. An age when a “mild-mannered professor” could
condescendingly and patronizingly examine all these Indian Origin arguments and
refute them in detail, and kindly make a few innocuous concessions to them in
the process. An age when an established “scholar” could wax eloquent and show
his oratorical skills in promoting lofty philosophies of unbiased debate and a
quest for the truth, without facing either
the heat of the debate or the
possibility of being proved wrong in all that he has been asserting to date.

Now Hock had a chance
to practice what he preached: he could have examined in detail (a) chapters 1,
2 and 5 of my third book (2008), which conclusively prove that the Avesta, the
proto-Mitanni and the Late or New books of the Rigveda (1,5,8-10) represent a
common culture which continues into post-Vedic times, while the Early or New
books of the Rigveda (2-4, 6-7) represent a far older and more archaic culture;
(b) chapter 3 of my third book (2008) which conclusively prove that the
geography of the Early or Old books of the Rigveda is of a people inhabiting
areas within India to the east of the Sarasvati (Ghaggar-Hakra), who were only
just starting to expand westwards into new and unfamiliar areas to their west;
and (c) chapter 4 of my third book (2008), which conclusively proves that the
proto-Mitanni emigrated from India in the late third millennium BCE and that
the Early or Old books of the Rigveda go much farther back into time, that the
Proto-Indo-European homeland was in India, and that the Harappan culture was
Indo-Iranian.

Hock could have
examined all this detailed data, evidence and interpretation without bias, and
sought to arrive at the truth either by accepting the Out-of-India case or
proving it wrong with ruthless logic.

But, faced with a
formidable Out-of-India case, and masses of unassailable data, evidence and
interpretations, and opponents who can not be patronized, Hock comes out in his
true colors: he totally refuses to even pretend to examine the Out-of-India case,
starts an all-out cyber and campus campaign against it, resorts to a libelous
and calumnious dismissal of the entire case as a political case of “'Aryans', i.e. Hindus, are real Indians; e.g. Talageri
1993ab, 2008”, and urges all western and academic scholars to censor
and edit their conclusions “lest they
unwittingly support ideologically motivated agendas”.

Is this
the same Hock who delivered that philosophical sermon about “being transparent
and vulnerable”,
about evaluating “the many
conflicting theories without either questioning each others’ motives, or saying
‘Trust me, trust me’”, and about the need for “scholars who consider truth to be their
ultimate goal, but realize that truth is always conditional, to be superseded
by better evidence or interpretation of evidence”?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

HOCK
1999a:
“Out of India?
The linguistic evidence”, p.1-18 in “Aryan
and non-Aryan in South Asia: evidence,
interpretation, and ideology” 1999. (Proceedings of the International
Seminar on Aryan and non-Aryan in South Asia, Univ. of Michigan, October 1996)

HOCK
1999b:
“Through a glass darkly: Modern “racial” interpretations vs. textual and
general prehistoric evidence on ārya and dāsa/dasyu in Vedic
society. p145-174 in “Aryan and
non-Aryan in South Asia: evidence,
interpretation, and ideology” 1999. (Proceedings of the International
Seminar on Aryan and non-Aryan in South Asia, Univ. of Michigan, October 1996)

HOCK
2005:
“Historical Interpretation of the Vedic
Texts”, p.282-308 in “The Indo-Aryan
Controversy: Evidence and inference in Indian history”, Routledge, London and New York (Indian
edition), ed. E.F.Bryant, L.L.Patton, 2005.

About Me

Koenraad Elst (°Leuven 1959) distinguished himself early on as eager to learn and to dissent. After a few hippie years he studied at the KU Leuven, obtaining MA degrees in Sinology, Indology and Philosophy. After a research stay at Benares Hindu University he did original fieldwork for a doctorate on Hindu nationalism, which he obtained magna cum laude in 1998.
As an independent researcher he earned laurels and ostracism with his findings on hot items like Islam, multiculturalism and the secular state, the roots of Indo-European, the Ayodhya temple/mosque dispute and Mahatma Gandhi's legacy. He also published on the interface of religion and politics, correlative cosmologies, the dark side of Buddhism, the reinvention of Hinduism, technical points of Indian and Chinese philosophies, various language policy issues, Maoism, the renewed relevance of Confucius in conservatism, the increasing Asian stamp on integrating world civilization, direct democracy, the defence of threatened freedoms, and the Belgian question. Regarding religion, he combines human sympathy with substantive skepticism.